Forcing Pass

[hrothgar]

Question for the Peanut gallery:

 

Auction proceeds as follows

 

(1C) - P - (2H) - 2S

(3H) - 4S - (P) - P

(5H) - P - (P) - ???

 

Is the pass over 5H forcing?

Originally, I thought that it shouldn't be, however, I'm starting to change my mind.

Regardless, would be used to get some outside opinions...

[whereagles]

Forcing passes only make sense if it's clear your side has more points then the opponents.

 

In this case, if pard had strong spade support, we could have bid 4♥ instead of 4♠. Then his pass could be taken as forcing. Since he didn't bid 4♥ there's no guarantee you have more points than the opponents and pass should not be forcing.

[Fluffy]

Agree with Whereagles, just to note that if we are Vulnerable and they arent I would take pass as forcing as well.

[Flame]

I play that after

1C) - P - (2H) - 2S

(3H) -

 

4S = not creating a forcing pass

4H = creating a forcing pass. (say nothing about the hearts holding)

 

a part from this im also think that a general rule that when we bid a vul game we should be in forcing pass situation, maybe the best is to combine those and add only when there wasnt a simple bid (like 4h here) that could be used to creat the forcing pass, therfore :

 

1C) - P - (2H) - 2S

(3H) - 4S - (P) - P

(5H) - P = not forcing since could used 4h

 

while

1C) - P - (2H) - 2S

(4h) - 4S - (P) - P

(5H) - P = forcing since there wasnt a simple alternative.

[inquiry]

(1C) - P - (2H) - 2S

(3H) - 4S - (P) - P

(5H) - P - (P) - ???

 

Is the pass over 5H forcing?

Yes and No. Bridge is not dichotomous, so the meaning of the pass over 5♥'s changes with the context in which it was made.

 

IF you are vulnerable and your opponents are not, the jump to 4♠ was clearly to make (as silly to bid that on this auction otherwise), and your opponents are much more likely to take a sacrafice against your bid. So in that case, I would tend to play the pass as forcing. There are a couple of caveats here. You are a passed hand in essences (you could not bid over 1♣ and you could have made a stronger raise (see below), so let's call this a pseudo forcing pass.

 

If we are not vul and they are vul, I am more likely to have bid 4♠ as a pure sacrafice, and they are less likely to try to punish me by doubling and more likely to bid one more only when they have a great chance to make it. So the pass in that case is clearly not forcing.

 

The fun ones are when we are both vul or both not vul. The general rules here should be very much like what Flame said. If I have ♠ support and a fair hand, I should either cue-bid ♥ or make a fit non-jump bid of 4♣ or 4♦ to establish a forcing pass situation. Why does 4♣ and 4♦ promise ♠ support by the hand over the 1♣ bidder? He lack stregth or legnth to make a direct seat bid over opener, so clearly will not have long suit and lack of support for partners ♠ suit that would be sufficient to bid now at the four level. Such a hand doesn't exist.

 

So on this auction, if we are vul and they are not, pass was as close to forcing as you can get, all other conditions, pass is clearly not forcing. If you belong in 4♠ or if they should be wacked in 5♥ but in fourth seat your partner passed you out with some bland 2♠ overcall, the fault will lay squarely on the 4♠ bidder. He should have bid something other than 4♠ at his first opportunity. BTW, direct raises (if you play bergen, or unassuming cuei-bid, and fit jumps. fit non-jumps, as rule should not establish a forcing pass situation).

 

Ben

[Free]

Perhaps something of importance about the auction: the 2♥ bid was weak, and it was a MP event...

[hrothgar]

Perhaps something of importance about the auction: the 2♥ bid was weak, and it was a MP event...

Here are my own thoughts:

 

Originally, I had assumed that a direct 4S bid should NOT establish a forcing pass. As Ben and others have noted, bidding 4S rather than 4H would seem to limit the hand.

 

With this said and done, when I look back at the complete auction, it seems as if there is a critical datapoint that no-one has yet considered.

 

The 5H bidder originally bid 3H over 3S.

3H is natural and non-forcing.

 

Given that the 5H bidder was originally willing to contract at the 3 level, it would seem logical that partner's pass over 4S could be considered as forcing...

 

Still trying to make up my mind on this one...

[inquiry]

The 5H bidder originally bid 3H over 3S.

3H is natural and non-forcing.

 

Given that the 5H bidder was originally willing to contract at the 3 level, it would seem logical that partner's pass over 4S could be considered as forcing...

 

Still trying to make up my mind on this one...

Ever heard of walk the dog? Maybe 3♥ bidder was sandbagging. Alternatively, maybe his hand got a lot better after your partner raised ♠. Perhaps both your opponents have slightly better than they showed (the 2♥ bidder, instead of having, say a blizzard like a Ten high suit, has a nice seven bagger and little else), maybe all the honors are located well for them.

 

Here is a fairly good rule to live by. Trust your partners bidding more than your opponents. If you feel like your opponents are more trustworthy than your partner, maybe you need a new partner. Of course, there are times when you can expect your partner to be jerking around in the auction, but this is not one of them. A thoughtful partner who has vallues for a real 4♠ raise will not up and bid 4♠, he will let you know the good news by bidding something else. Trust that, if you can't, educate your partner and if he is uneducatable, then either learn to live in a fog or find a new partner. :-)

 

Ben

[luis]

A direct raise to game never creates a forcing pass situation in my partnerships.

 

In other situations it depends on the vulnerability as many said here.

[Fluffy]

The fun ones are when we are both vul or both not vul. The general rules here should be very much like what Flame said. If I have ♠ support and a fair hand, I should either cue-bid ♥ or make a fit non-jump bid of 4♣ or 4♦ to establish a forcing pass situation. Why does 4♣ and 4♦ promise ♠ support by the hand over the 1♣ bidder? He lack stregth or legnth to make a direct seat bid over opener, so clearly will not have long suit and lack of support for partners ♠ suit that would be sufficient to bid now at the four level. Such a hand doesn't exist.

 

Ben

Hi Ben!

 

Maybe it is not the most apropiate bidding, but still I think I play here 4♣/♦ (not 100% sure about ♣ actually) for double fit showing, something like 'forrester' so partner has more info when deciding what to do after 5♥, (double fit strongly suggests to bid while 'misfit' suggest to double or pass), but they don´t create a forcing pass sequence at all.